Hello, my friend and I have have a cash bet on a disagreement about a rule that took place at our local poker room last night and hoping to solve this after posting rule after rule at each other he asked me to post this here. I am a dealer and consider myself very well rounded when it comes to rules and he is a LONG time player that also considers himself well rounded with rules. NOTE: this really isnt a beginners question but I didnt see a better place to post this.

Heres what happened: We are playing a NO limit Texas Hold'um the blinds are 150-300. 3 players in a 9 handed game limp in the next player to act is the small blind who decides to go all in for 350 chips. The big blind then raises all in, this prompts the dealer to stop and think and then he looks at me for a confirmation. I tell him that the big blind is unable to raise and can only call for 50 more. My friend then says that is incorrect and we begin to argue, the dealer calls the rooms floor (the owner) who knows dirt about poker.

So the question here is does the big blind even though he has 300 chips in the pot still allowed to raise because he has yet to act (like a player who has no chips in the pot would be allowed to raise) Or because he has chips in the pot and the small blind has now created a bet with an all in action preventing any further raises to be allowed.

Here are some examples I gave him in limit that apply to no limit.

Example of limit. Blinds 2-4, player under the gun goes all in for 5, The next player has the option to call the 5, or min raise to 8. The reason it doesnt raise to 10 is because the 5 dollars is not a raise. In order to have a RAISE there MUST be 2 bets. 5 Dollars is 1 bet and an action (4 dollars being the bet 1 dollar being action). Actions can only ever be called.

Now lets say we have the same situation accept this time the under the gun player is now the button. Everyone has limped in for 4 dollars and it comes around to the button. The button goes all in for 5 dollars. Once again we still only have 1 bet and 1 action. In this case because everyone playing has chips in the pot they may only call the action because if the player or players were allowed to raise it would be considered raising themselves. Once a player has already matched the minimum amount of chips i.e called (in this case $4) they may only ever put more chips in the pot in a no limit game if a FULL RAISE has been made.

The end all question is does the big blind retain the option to raise if a bet and action all in have been commited before he has been able to act

Big blind can raise as he hasn't acted yet. Had small blind just called, big blind would still be able to raise. The same logic applies here.

If big blind just calls, the rest of the table can only call as the betting hasn't been reopened.

The Brick and Mortar forum will be better suited for these kinds of questions in the future.

I see your logic and you have the same idea as my friend. But my problem is the action that is the 50 extra chips on top of the minimum bet prevents a raise from happening accept by someone with no chips or an amount of chips that this all in would be considered a raise to. The big blind has a forced 300 chips in the pot. Although he hasnt acted yet he still has 300 in the pot which although he has not acted still commits him to at least the call amount if he folds or checks. So how is it that he is able to raise an action?

The only way this would make any sense to me at all is if the big blind is considered to have no chips in the pot.

You said it yourself. The big blind is a forced bet but he is still given an action.

Put in another way, the action of small blind can not take away an right for the big blind, in this case raising.

A way to remember these rules is that had the player A just called would player B be allowed to raise. If yes then player B is still allowed to raise, if no then player B isn't allowed to raise.

In your example the 50 on top does not reopen the betting so any player who had limped would still not be able to raise. But the betting doesn't need to be reopened for the big blind to raise simply because he hadn't acted yet. Putting in the big blind is not an action it is a requirement.

By your logic the big blind shouldn't be allowed to raise pre-flop if it is limped around because everybody just called his raise. He is and it is the same reason that he is allowed to raise the small blind.

oh wow i really would never want to play in your room.. no offense

but yeah if utg goes all in for 1 chip more it still doesn't matter anyone can raise.

What you need to remember is that an All-in bet does not close out action to other players......

The only question you need to address is whether an all-in bet reopens action to players whose action had been closed before the all-in.

In this case the action to the Big Blind was still open so there is no issue.

BB shove is obviously allowed...to argue against is beyond foolish. a shove that is less than a minraise does not reopen the action, but bb hasnt had the chance to act yet so in his case it doesnt matter...he can call fold or raise. if he folds people who have already called can now call or fold. ez game

It is incredibly standard that bb can raise here. I am surprised you have actually levelled yourself into thinking there is a way he couldn't. I really hope you got this one right at the time, because I would sure be choked if I was the big blind and told I couldn't raise...

Question, do you actually play poker, or just deal? (not meant to be an insult in any way, just wondering..)

You lose the bet, pay your friend his money.

Yes, the BB is allowed to (re)raise there, because he hasn't acted yet.

It would be different when the BBs fold. The limpers then would only have the option of folding or calling.

Not that it's relevant to your question, are we talking about a tournament here?
Otherwise if you're both a dealer and a high stakes player you really need to brush up on the rules.

Don't need to brush up just didn't make sense at the time but as I started thinking about it did. I had just forgot that the big blind did in fact still have the right to act, and was thinking more on the chips. Honest mistake no one is perfect.